How War Began

Author: Keith F. Otterbein

Keith Otterbein is a professor of anthropology at the University at Buffalo.
His approach to How War Began is academic. This review will review his work on the question more succinctly.

Otterbein lists various theories about the origins of war: the Killer Ape
Theory – humankind acting out his innate killer instincts. This theory, Otterbein
points out, has been described as having origins in late nineteenth century
Darwinism and has been associated with man the hunter.

A rival to the Killer Ape Theory is the Developmental Theory: humankind was
originally peaceful but fell into war as human society passed into new phases
of history, and warfare rose in stages, from armed raids for sport to a political
expression of early nationalism.

Thirdly are the "diffusion and acculturation theories" – peaceful people
learning war from more tightly organized and warlike political powers – a not
very useful abstraction.

The fourth and last theory, the World Systems Theory, which Otterbein suggests
takes "the best from the earlier theories."

From here Otterbein continues for 200 more pages, including an eight-page
conclusion.

My own description of "How War Began" goes back to hunter-gatherer societies
and a condition with humanity that persisted through the ages. There were small
wars, or riots, between people within societies such as Colin Turnbull described
in his work "Forest People." And there was violence between societies. Violence
came as a result of people unable to settle their differences verbally, viewing
violence as the proper alternative and believing perhaps that those they disagreed
with needed punishment. Different societies hardly recognized strangers as human.
They were hardly willing to give sympathy or understanding to the point of view
of the other side, and hardly willing to resolve the conflict between them through
discussion and perhaps compromise. There were beliefs that the other side had
sent demons against them. There was revenge and raiding, with violent warfare
becoming a tradition within societies – as happened within hunter-gatherer societies
among North American Indians.

Wars continued with the ownership of land, the
rise of towns, and with authoritarian kings. Kings wanted more power and
possessions without concern for those from whom they would take these. War had
beginnings that were not necessarily linked to a previous war. Resolution came when one king destroyed the power of compititor kings.

Wars came and went and came again not because of some mysterious,
innate compulsion to war. Eventually political entities found it in their interest to work out their conflicts discussion and compromise. Into the 19th century this began between Canada and the United States. Looking at the 21st century, this has happened between Germany and France.
Federation helped. For example, there have not been wars between Montana and Wyoming because their conflicts are worked out as the federal level. Accords such
as the European Union also helped. Wars have vanished with institutional changes
rather than a change in the hearts of people. In ancient times, when people
were supposed to be close to God, people were destined to suffer wars not because
of irreverence but because of inadequate institutional changes.

The above is my conclusion. In his conclusion, Keith Otterbein draws on his
work as a student of anthropology. He writes that some non-literate societies
are violent and some are not. He describes the difference between them as that
of military organization. He writes of non-professional and professional military
organizations. The non-professional military – based on fraternal interest –
engaged in warfare that was only infrequent. Then weapons for hunting improved. "Big
game hunting increased in importance. Concomitant with this change was an increase
in the frequency of warfare."

Otterbein is opposed to the "Myth of the
Peaceful Savage." He writes of having found that hunter-gatherers whose subsistence
relied heavily upon hunting, particularly large game hunting, were likely to
engage in frequent warfare. He found that a decline in the hunting of large
game had accompanied a decline in warfare. "Peaceful peoples," he writes, "settled
river valleys, where they either domesticated crops or received crops through
diffusion." With an absence of warfare came political complexity. Then and after
a while the state and military organization arose, based on elites and later
on massed infantry, and with this came greater war.

In his conclusion Otterbein challenges the claim that there was no warfare
before the Neolithic (new Stone Age) period. He challenges the theory that early
agriculturalists, including the first residents of Jericho, engaged in warfare.
And he disputes the claim that military conquests led to the first states.